Photography? (14 Viewers)

gray · Jan 28, 2004

I wouldn't say it's my best photo, but I sent one in to my university's magazine and got a $20 prize :extatic:

I like the motion effects and the depth of field

(undoctored)

gray · Jan 28, 2004

My family owns an orchid nursery, and I've taken some photos

Martin · Jan 28, 2004

I meant the cameras themselves, not pics taken with them :wallbang:

Oh well..

Vicky · Jan 28, 2004

GRAY i love that picture ! one of the coolest photos ever (i mean the one ofthe train )

and were you guys using a macro lens to take those pictures of flowers ? or is it digital ? hard to tell ...
DaJuve i like a few of yours
and Gray i really like 2nd one in the top row

why don't you guy try using a solid background, i think that way all the leaves and other stuff on the background won't take the attention away from the flower.

i personally like black and white pictures much better then color ..... if anyone has any black and white photography i'd love to see that

gray · Jan 28, 2004

DaJuve requested, so.. yeah

Thanks

It was taken using my Sony DSC-P71, and i just had it set on macro mode.

Thanks for the tip

I was thinkin of playing around with them a bit, but I just pasted the photos straight onto a page.

Hey I really like that pic! It looks like an ad for a fashion label :thumb: Black and white photography's cool, but it's really hard to get a photo that would definitely look better in b&w than it would in colour. Know what I mean? I think you've done it with that shot though :thumb:

Vicky · Jan 28, 2004

haha well that's the picture my bf took of me

i used to shoot with his camera and did pretty nice i think but i don't have any pictures right now .... i'll post a few pictures that look really nice in black and white if you don't mind !

Wings · Jan 29, 2004

OK boss no more pics. Just the cameras

Great stuff. Can you give me more details about this photo.
What settings did you use for the flowers?

Thanks Mia. I was using a digital camera (Pentax Optio 550) in Macro mode. Hard to get a solid background when the setting is natural. Am still trying to understand all those photography stuff. The photo at the bridge is fantastic. It's hard to take a subject at the corner of a photo & make it noticeable especially with such an expansive background. I wonder if it would have worked in colour?

gray · Jan 29, 2004

I took it on a particularly bright day while i was inside the train carriage (hence the reflection of the camera in the foreground). I was going past another train at the time, and sitting in the lower part of the carriage, i could see underneath the other train (hence the cool motion blur underneath) The buildings were reflected from the window inside my carriage, and i managed to focus it in such a way that i didn't get any glare, and managed to pick up the reflections of the people in my carriage too

The lights at the top are also inside my train

I just put it in macro mode and used a low ISO trying to get as much light as i could without facing the sun. Owning an orchid nursery gives plenty of opportunities for nice nature photography, but the flowers aren't in blooming season yet :down: Look out for more pics mid-year

I think it works because the subject's wearing dark clothing, and the high contrast with the bright tones of the city. If she was wearing anything lighter than navy blue, she would have disappeared into the background. The photo's definitely better in black and white

Martin · Jan 29, 2004

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
I just put it in macro mode and used a low ISO trying to get as much light as i could without facing the sun. Owning an orchid nursery gives plenty of opportunities for nice nature photography, but the flowers aren't in blooming season yet :down: Look out for more pics mid-year

You mean a high ISO.

gray · Jan 29, 2004

no, i actually meant a low ISO.

I set the ISO low, because high ISO seems to give me a certain amount of noise.

When i said "a low ISO trying to get as much light as i could", I meant that I used a low ISO, but tried to get as much light into the lens at the same time"

Martin · Jan 29, 2004

My bad

Wings · Jan 31, 2004

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
I took it on a particularly bright day while i was inside the train carriage (hence the reflection of the camera in the foreground). I was going past another train at the time, and sitting in the lower part of the carriage, i could see underneath the other train (hence the cool motion blur underneath) The buildings were reflected from the window inside my carriage, and i managed to focus it in such a way that i didn't get any glare, and managed to pick up the reflections of the people in my carriage too

The lights at the top are also inside my train

Complex.

Have you ever tried night photography?

Majed · Aug 4, 2004

This may not be the best place to post this, but I don't think i should create a new thread for this question.

I'm looking to buy a Digital Camera (not for pro photography...), but I have minimal experience in cameras. I'm not a camera person myself: I've only owned one camera and it was only an old 3.5mm camera, and I dont take pics very often (quite sad really).
Anyhow, I browsed some sites online to find the best camera and I still dont know what's hot and what's not. What features are usefull and what aren't.

Is there any Digital Camera you would highly recomend?

I'm looking for a camera with these specifications:
-At least 4 megapixels.
-A Decent Zoom
-Not bulky
-Should have at least a couple minutes of video recording w/ sound

That's about it.. I assume that all cameras have the red-eye reducer, in the dark , in the sun-light capabilities...etc.

Your input would be greatly appretiated.

Art^ · Aug 4, 2004

the price difference between 3 and 4 are big, but trust me, the image size isnt.

If i were you, then i would buy something from SONY, NIKON, HP, CANON or KODAK. But thats only me

Majed · Aug 5, 2004

so you think i should go for a 3.x mp rather than a 4?? i'd want a camera that'll last for at least a 3 or 4 years!

Thanks Art

, but that doesn't really narrow down my search much

BTW, how about Olympus? ... i've heard great things about them.

Art^ · Aug 5, 2004

Olympus are great. But some of their models dont record with sound.

I personly dont need a big megapixel camera, because i dont need that kind of resolution on my 17' screen. I have a 3.1 and that does more than the job.

If i were you i wouldnt pick anything below 3x optical zoom and 3 digital zoom.

I personly have a Kodak Easyshare DX 6430 3.1 MP.
And that does more than the job, it haves every thing you wrote (except for the 4 MP).

Theres no noise on the pictures. I have a 256 sd card, and it can have approximatly 300 pictures on high res.

If you want a picture exsample, then i can upload a picture.

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/pscCameras/3,Megapixel/Kodak,EasyShare,DX6340,/PRD_144287_3098crx.aspx

Elnur_E65 · Aug 5, 2004

Hey, I also had a question about photo cameras.

I wanted to get something on the low semi-pro level, looking for a better quality.

I was told that basically it is the lenses which make a camera really good. How is "Carl Zeiss" feature on some Sony models?

kurvengeflüster · Aug 5, 2004

Carl Zeiss is always a feature which signalizes quality as it is an old bull on that market. though it shouldn't be the only attribute you're looking for.

which kind of pictures do you want to take? landscape, makro, sports ...

I bought a Kyocera M410R (no Carl Zeiss lenses) some days ago and I'm very very satisfy with that type :thumb:

Elnur_E65 · Aug 5, 2004

I want no macro and no sports- just landscape and some portraits

How would I identify "good" lenses? Or do I need to have them?

kurvengeflüster · Aug 5, 2004

I only know two "famous" lense types. it is "Schneider Kreuznach" and "Carl Zeiss", but of course there are others which are also good. You are on the bright side when you take a camera of a company which deals with photography in general (such as Kodak, Canon, Nikon, Minolta and so on...personally I would never buy a HP-digicam but maybe that's just my quirk. (though I own a Kyocera

, but these cameras have got a good reputation for making decent pics )

I would also prefer lenses made of glass and not grinded plastic or something like that. 3 - 4 mega pixels should be (but that depends on how much you want to extend/edit your pictures).

if you are interested in heavy-zoom cameras then don't make the mistake and take one with good digital zoom. the optical one is important! imo digital zoom is plaything. if you enlarge pictures shot with digital zoom you won't have fun.

ensure that you can read the display well at daylight. the biggest screen hasn't to be the best one. my dad has got the Kodak DX 6940 and its screen is quite weak outdoor. but on the other hand it is bigger than the Kyocera one.

if you just want to take landscape and portraits I guess you can have a good camera within 200 €.

Photography? (14 Viewers)

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banter era connoiseur

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banter era connoiseur

Senior Member

StrikerMania Champ 2004

Senior Member

StrikerMania Champ 2004

Senior Member

********* a.D.

Senior Member

********* a.D.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 14)